sign up log in
Want to go ad-free? Find out how, here.

Matt Nolan says that current account deficits are not bad in themselves, but the stock of debt needs to grow more slowly than the stock of assets

Matt Nolan says that current account deficits are not bad in themselves, but the stock of debt needs to grow more slowly than the stock of assets
What really matters is that we need to grow faster than our debt

By Matthew Nolan*

In a recent opinion piece on the Herald, Bob Jones suggested that "saving is for fools", and in turn complained about Graeme Wheeler’s suggestion that New Zealander’s need to save more.

As is often the case, both sides are right, but they are merely talking past each other.

People should choose to save and invest based on their individual circumstances, but if there are issues with the nations “competitiveness” it is going to show up in the ways we save and invest.

To understand the issue, we need to hold back on morally attacking or praising savers and try to figure out what is actually going on.

Bob Jones is right that the choice about whether to save or spend from current income is up to the individual.

The Victorian moral desire for thrift, or ‘Keynesian’ push for unfettered spending, are both the result of a partial story – and they ignore the overarching point that it is people who decide whether to spend or save, and their decisions should be based on their own circumstances and the expectations they have for the future.

However, Graeme Wheeler wasn’t disagreeing with this. Like any good economist, he respects the choice of individuals.

Overseas borrowing

His comments were instead based on a simple fact, something Jones alludes to in his piece, that New Zealand as a whole appears to be saving a lot less than it is investing, and making up the gap by borrowing significant amounts from overseas.

On the face of it the link between savings and investment for a nation might seem strange, so let’s do some quick algebra to show how this is the case. For a country our GDP is a measure of our income. 

By definition GDP/Income (Y) equals consumption (C) plus investment (I) plus government spending plus net exports (X, where this is exports minus imports).

Government spending is on both investment and consumption, so we can just chuck it into those categories.  This leaves us with Y=C+I+X. Doing a little rearrangement shows that Y-C = I + X, this states income minus consumption equals investment plus net exports.

Now income minus consumption is savings, so savings is equal to investment plus net exports.

If we are saving less than we are investing, net exports have to be negative – in other words imports are greater than exports and we have a current account deficit !

Another way to think about it is that, if we want to invest more than we have available to invest (which is our savings) we need to borrow from overseas – and this borrowing is the current account deficit.

Current account deficits

Current account deficits are, in of themselves, fine.

If other countries are willing to lend to us to invest or consume, and we are willing to borrow at the given rate of interest, that is good.

After all, at a point in time some countries will borrow and some will lend. And unless we are exporting or importing from aliens the global current account deficits and surpluses will cancel out.

But the persistence of the large current account deficits in New Zealand (post-1975), has led many commentators to observe that the investments New Zealander’s have made don’t seem to be making much of a return.

Investing more than we save, for what looks like a “relatively” low rate of return has made many analysts consider something may be seriously amiss with the New Zealand economy.

Productivity

Combined with the fact that real interest rates in New Zealand are higher than most of the developed world, our relative productivity performance seems weak, and the real exchange rate appears high there is a sign that New Zealand as a whole is not saving enough and/or is willing to invest too much in non-performing assets.

Bob Jones appeal that housing and property has been a “good bet” in the past helps get to one of the potential causes of the problem – a systematic overspending on residential and commercial property.

Generally, economists aren’t saying to people “stop being naughty, spend less and save more”. Economists are asking if there is any failure that has occurred which has led to this persistently high interest rate in New Zealand – they are asking why there is such a large gap between what we save (which is low compared to much of the world) and what we invest in plant, machinery, and buildings.

There has been significant debate around what these issues are, and what should be done.

However, one area where there has been some consensus is the idea that tax settings in New Zealand strongly favour investment in residential property – and strongly dissuade other types of savings and investment.  Jones is right that people have done well out of property in recent decades, but a significant driver of this has been a transfer through the tax system. In so far as this is the case, the issue of savings isn’t a problem of individual choice, it is a problem of government policy and the incentives put in front of people.

The tax incentives

The way this works is that the tax system, by being biased in favour of housing (as regards to other investments) creates a wedge between the private return on housing and the total social return.

By favouring housing, and transferring funds to people willing to invest in housing, the tax system makes the private return from doing so higher than the actual value of the investment – leading to a situation with too much investment in housing.

In this way both Jones are the RBNZ governor are right – people are investing in housing because it gives them a “good return”, but the fact they are doing so isn’t good for us as a whole!

Sustainability

In truth, there is a lot more to the debate than just housing – and the role of housing might even be overstated. Furthermore, the goal is not to get rid of current account deficits – as long as we have economic growth, small current account deficits are sustainable well into the future.

The key thing is that the stock of debt is growing more slowly than the stock of assets.

The point is that the complaints of economists are not the product of us assuming stupidity, or telling people they are immoral. They are the concerns of a group who believes that there may be some policy relevant issues – for example the peculiar ways that the New Zealand tax system treats housing as an asset – which are hurting New Zealanders

Far from showing the Reserve Bank governor is out of touch, as Jones suggests, his willingness to discuss this issue illustrates that he realises how important it is for future generations of New Zealanders.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Matt Nolan is a senior economist at Infometrics. You can contact him here »

We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.

Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.

10 Comments

I think you are in danger of muddying the waters a bit. You say:

"The key thing is that the stock of debt is growing more slowly than the stock of assets.

The point is that the complaints of economists are not the product of us assuming stupidity, or telling people they are immoral. They are the concerns of a group who believes that there may be some policy relevant issues – for example the peculiar ways that the New Zealand tax system treats housing as an asset – which are hurting New Zealanders"

 

I would make two points here:

1   The key thing is the investment return exceeds the cost of capital. Put another way, it is a productive investment rather than a destructive one.

2  The main way the tax system favours property is via the treatment of interest as an operating expense.

 

However, the reason Bob Jones is right is because we live in an inflationary world. Thus, if I borrow money I pay it back at a later time in money that is worth less.

Up
0

"I think you are in danger of muddying the waters a bit. You say:"

Yes, you are right - that paragraph was phrased in the wrong way.  When I was discussing the stock, I was inherently hiding everything about changes in value, interest payments etc - and so the terminology is loose - I should have just said that "as long as economic growth is quicker than the inflation adjusted cost of debt servicing it is sustainable"!

Luckily, that is pretty unrelated to the rest of the article.

"However, the reason Bob Jones is right is because we live in an inflationary world. Thus, if I borrow money I pay it back at a later time in money that is worth less."

Inflation is captured in all asset prices - but the inflation component of interest income is hit by tax, while the inflation component of growth in nominal house prices is not.  This is indeed part of the "tax issue" that creates the distortions the government should be looking at fixing up.

I'm not disagreeing with Jones about housing seemingly like a good bet for people ... I'm disagreeing that this is necessarily a good thing, due to (for example) the different ways the government is taxing assets.

Up
0

Yes, I felt I ended up muddying the waters too, what started out as clear in my mind turned opaque on me.

Up
0

"Bob Jones suggested that "saving is for fools""

PIMCO's CEO made an apt comment, equally applies to Bob Jones IMHO.

Saving is for a rainy day its a safety thing which has a lot of facets to that safety.  Without having a crystal  ball to gaze into we cant know the returns, or losses of any future investment, we take a best guess. 

So when we go into a deflationary world bob jones will be wrong....which I think is probable and correct and therefore not a good bet.

regards

Up
0

I guess it depends on how much you can afford to lose.

 

DFC NZ's exposure to Robt. Jones (Harbour Tower) was another notable failure. DFC NZ's subsidiary Caycorp Investments sold the Harbour Tower to Robt. Jones (Harbour Tower), providing the finance to do so through Robt.Jones (Acceptances) Ltd.13 (Again, this transaction has a window-dressing element to it, the fixed asset was transformed into a loan.)

 

 At the same time it also lent significant funds to Robt. Jones (Harbour Tower) to facilitate the purchase of 44 Wall St, Robt. Jones Investments' flagship building'. However, DFC NZ only had a second mortgage on this New York property and poor occupancy levels resulted in its being relinquished to the first mortgagee, with DFC NZ losing $30 million as a result (The Dominion 1992, p. 16).

 

DFC Investments had taken cumulative preference shares in Robt. Jones (Acceptances) Ltd and these funds were on-lent to Robt. Jones (Harbour Tower) Ltd and were secured by a debenture. Unlike the two mortgages for the $220 million lent directly to Robt. Jones (Harbour Tower), the debenture was not guaranteed by the parent company, Robt. Jones Investments Ltd.

 

Consequently, Robt. Jones Investments could afford to cut Robt. Jones (Harbour Tower) and Robt. Jones (Acceptances) loose. The huge losses in all of these companies show how significantly expectations diverged from outcomes in both the construction and property investment sectors, which is particularly suggestive of euphoria.

Up
0

Its amazing, to some its like the 80's never happened....

Don't forget the little man, he was able to experience it through the listed vehicle as well.

That and the Swiss franc loans, were the first time we'd seen grown men weep...

 

We use to like the DFC deals on fishing quota....

Oh its all coming back... BNZF, NZI...... prime lending rate 18.75% AFR.....

the margin loans.....

 

Up
0

Sir Bob Jones can afford to say (and regularly does just to be contentious) anything he likes.  A few years back he swore he would never publicly list any of his companies as the sharemarket was in his opinion for fools.  He eventually did list and in 1987after the sharemarket crash shareholders in his company probably lost a lot of money. But he personally didn't go broke did he.  And I don't think he admitted to being a fool. 

 

Up
0

Matt,

Are you then advocating a capital gains tax; or maybe the non deductibility of interest on loans for some or all property?

Separately, on the main argument about Y=C+I+X, my own view is that the chicken and egg equation primarily starts with the exchange rate's effect on X, rather than it starting with what type of Investment is preferable. Genuine housing improvements, I agree with you, are up to individuals as a choice, and I personally believe help NZ long term, by making it a better place to live. Borrowing against the nominal value of houses or farms to buy foreign goods and services seems to me the main problem.

And that is encouraged by allowing totally free money printing or foreign funded loans by the main commercial banks, and by the government itself insisting on kneecapping the economy by funding its own deficit offshore. The exchange rate effects of those capital flows give compelling signals to buy foreign, hence the current account deficit, and its associated loss of wealth (and so long term income generating ability) of New Zealanders.

You I think believe our savings deficit is demand driven; I think it is primarily supply driven, and that is encouraged by our monetary and fiscal settings. 

Up
0

Borrowing against the nominal value of houses or farms to buy foreign goods and services seems to me the main problem.
And that is encouraged by allowing totally free money printing or foreign funded loans by the main commercial banks,.....

 

and as chance would have it from another thread:

http://www.interest.co.nz/sites/default/files/Westpac%20drought.pdf

see the last para (as wrtten by the bank):

. A higher terms of trade means higher incomes for the economy in general.
Moreover, higher New Zealand Inc. income over the next several years will be reflected in a higher exchange rate, which will boost New Zealand households’ purchasing power and thus increase their living standards.
On the flip-side, a higher
exchange rate will hamper non-agricultural exports.

 

further comment suggesting the meaning or nature of what a "bank" is, has changed...

maybe what the bank means in the second last sentence is boost NZ households borrowing capacity thus increase their living standards.... (shame about the flip side).

thats banking for the institutional we think....

correct us if we err....

 

Up
0

Bob Jones might be the hypocrite here.  My understanding was that he has reasonable equity in his property holdings.  He is not running on the treadmill of massive borrowing.  If he does have equity, which I think he does, then he has been saving in some form and retaining earnings to build.   He himself has been saving like a fool.

Up
0